Wireless Security Architecture - Department of Computer...

1

Secure Systems Research Group - FAU © 2005 Saeed Rajput,

Wireless Security Architecture

Saeed RajputDept. of Computer Science and Eng.

Florida Atlantic Universityhttp://www.cse.fau.edu/~saeed

© Saeed Rajput, 2005

2


Which Security?• Link Layer• Network Layer• Transport Layer• Application Layer• Enterprise (Business) Layer

Erten, Y.M., A layered security architecture for corporate 802.11 wireless networks, IEEE Wireless Telecommunications Symposium, 2004, Vol., Iss., 14-15 May 2004

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

3


Security Technologies:

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�!�� "��#��$�

#��%�� & '!

!!��!��(��#��%��

& '!

!)* *��!��!!+��#��%�� + '!

(��,�-��

!��!�� '!�

4


Two Extremes: Of Encryption Options

• Link Encryption• End-to-End Encryption

5


Link Encryption

Pfleeger, C. P., and Plfeeger, S. L. Security in computing, 3/E (c) 2003, by Pearson Education, Inc.

6


Encrypted Message (Link Encryption)


7


End-to-End Encryption


8


Encrypted Message (End-to-End)


9


End-to-End Encryption


10


How is Wireless Security Different?• Vulnerable due to open access to wired network.• Greater potential of loss of authorized hardware• Demands on Ubiquitous access: Changing IP address• Demands on sustained connectivity while roaming• Unreliable channel• Limited computation power of devices• Easy to launch DOS attacksArbaugh, W.A., Wireless security is different, IEEE Computer, Vol.36, Iss.8, Aug. 2003

11


Requirements: Wireless Security Architecture• Manageable Security• Computationally feasible Security?• Multi-layered: To provide failover safety• Centralized control and management• Supports Roaming• Friendly User Interface• Authentication (Ed’s suggestion)• Granular access control• Efficient: Does not cause significant overhead

12


Manageable Security• WEP is not manageable (Manual Key

updates)• Centralized access control even at layer 2:

e.g. IEEE 802.1X.– May use higher layer mechanisms (e.g. EAP-

TLS)• Issue:

– How to integrate with other access control mechanisms that are also required in an enterprise.

13


Computationally feasible Security?• Used as an excuse by mostly HW vendors

to push proprietary protocols.• E.g. SSL protocol easy to do even on

current Cell Phones (2003)– WTLS does not make sense.– WEP does not make sense in presence of

802.11i

Gupta, V.; Gupta, S., Experiments in wireless Internet security, Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, 2002. WCNC2002. 2002 IEEE, Vol.2, Iss., Mar 2002,

Pages: 860- 864 vol.2

14


Multi-layered: To provide failover safety• End-to-end security assumes:

– User will always be aware of security– The machine which user is using is secure– Security interfaces are anything but intuitive:

e.g.

Which website is secure?

15


Multi-layered: To provide failover safety• Lower layer security mechanisms can

provide some degree of security when upper security methods fail

• They do not need decisions to be made by users and their machines

16


Centralized control and management

• Difficult to do at lower layers.• For IEEE 802.11 -> 802.1x.• IKE for IP level – Centralized certification

authority• SSL – Need two way authentication –

Distribute certs to all users• Application Level easier.

17


Supports Roaming• Need Transport or higher layer security for

continuous security sessions.• Individual lower layer security associations (e.g.

IPSec and 802.11i) are terminated as device moves.

• Supports Session transfer e.g. from static to mobile stations

• Issues: Efficiency, and Security

Skow, E.; Jiejun Kong; Phan, T.; Cheng, F.; Guy, R.; Bagrodia, R.; Gerla, M.; Songwu Lu, A security architecture for application session handoff, Communications, 2002. ICC 2002. IEEE, International Conference on, Vol.4, Iss., 2002, Pages: 2058- 2063 vol.4

Yasuhiko Matsunaga, Ana Sanz Merino, Takashi Suzuki, Randy H. Katz, Secure authentication system for public WLAN roaming, Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Wireless mobile applications and services on WLAN hotspots table of contents, San Diego, CA, USA, Pages: 113 - 121

18


Granular access control• Difficult to provide granular access control

at lower layers.– Example: 802.1X AAA server, enables and

blocks ports (Layer 2).– IPSec enables and blocks applications.– Only Application Security can provide more

granularity.• Best provided at application• Issues:

– How to provide central control

19


Efficient: Does not cause significant overhead

• Specially critical when dealing with roaming PDAs in hospital and disaster recovery efforts

Skow, E.; Jiejun Kong; Phan, T.; Cheng, F.; Guy, R.; Bagrodia, R.; Gerla, M.; Songwu Lu, A security architecture for application session handoff, Communications, 2002. ICC 2002. IEEE, International Conference on, Vol.4, Iss., 2002, Pages: 2058- 2063 vol.4

Olariu, S.; Maly, K.; Foudriat, E.C.; Yamany, S.M., Wireless support for telemedicine in disaster management, Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2004. ICPADS 2004. Proceedings. Tenth International Conference on, Vol., Iss., 7-9 July 2004, Pages: 649- 656

20


Suggestions• Link Layer: (Yes)

– 802.11i with 802.1x• IPSec: (No – Yes when IPv6 becomes popular –

Mike)– Not good for roaming

• TLS: (Yes)– Do not use WTLS as it is not true Transport level protocol.– Enforce Client side cert.s

• Web service Security: (Yes) – No different from any other enterprise application.– Enhance it with location awareness

• Use hardware tokens to identify users and carry strong credentials for authentication e.g. RFIDS

21


Mike’s Recommendation

• Propose a reference architecture based on suggestions.

Wireless Security Architecture - Department of Computer...

Documents

Transcript of Wireless Security Architecture - Department of Computer...